Re: [VOTE] Project governance wiki doc
So did you two come to an agreement? I must have misread: changing the minimum number of votes to be a simple > majority of the number of people participating in the roll call. For > example, if we have a roll call of 21, then we'll need a minimum of 11 > binding votes participating. Of that 11, we'd need 2/3 to be +1 to pass, > so in that case 8 +1's. I guess we should visit this again afterwards, as this isn't what I > intended. I have little interest in changing any of the doc as written as reflected by my +1 vote. :) If you two could come to an agreement and articulate it / modify the wiki to reflect it, we can review as a community and vote again. Also, we should clarify the metrics by which the vote will pass which I didn't above. i.e. Simple Majority binding participants, Consensus from binding (no -1), etc. I'd advocate for simple majority since none of this is set in stone and at this point I believe we're bikeshedding against something that would be a non-issue assuming positive intent and alignment between response to roll call and participation. On Wed, Jun 17, 2020 at 8:08 PM Yifan Cai wrote: > +1 nb > > From: Jon Haddad > Sent: Wednesday, June 17, 2020 2:13 PM > To: dev@cassandra.apache.org > Subject: Re: [VOTE] Project governance wiki doc > > Yes, this is my understanding as well. > > > On Wed, Jun 17, 2020 at 2:10 PM Benedict Elliott Smith < > bened...@apache.org> > wrote: > > > I personally think we should not revisit the super-majority of votes > > decision, as that was settled already; simple-majority came a distant > > third. Since this question doesn't really invalidate that decision, I > > think for forward progress it's better to simply address the vote floor, > > but just my 2c. > > > > On 17/06/2020, 21:58, "Jon Haddad" wrote: > > > > For what it's worth, I thought Benedict's suggestion was a pretty > > reasonable one and am in favor of it. > > > > On Wed, Jun 17, 2020 at 1:40 PM Joshua McKenzie < > jmcken...@apache.org> > > wrote: > > > > > Race condition on that last one Benedict. > > > > > > What about using the quorum from roll call to simply define how > many > > +1's > > > are needed to pass something? Simple majority of the roll call, > > simple > > > majority of total participants on specific vote and it passes? > > > > > > For example: > > > > > >- 33 pmc members > > >- 16 roll call > > >- 9 +1's required. If only participation is 9 vote with +1, > passes > > >- If 9 +1's and 10 -1's, does not pass > > > > > > That prevents the "abstain to keep vote invalid" while keeping with > > the > > > lazy consensus spirit and requiring enough participation that a > vote > > should > > > reasonably be considered indicative. Does raise the bar a bit from > > "simple > > > majority of this many votes required" to "this many +1's required", > > but > > > hopefully people responding to a roll call actually plan on showing > > up. We > > > could also open votes with "this many +1's required to pass" which > > might > > > further encourage participation. > > > > > > > > > On Wed, Jun 17, 2020 at 2:24 PM Joshua McKenzie < > > jmcken...@apache.org> > > > wrote: > > > > > >> I don't see anybody advocating for the low watermark where it > > stands. > > >> I'm +1 on the "simple majority of roll call + supermajority of > that" > > >> revision, and no real harm in re-calling a vote today vs. > > yesterday; one > > >> day delay to clean this up now doesn't seem too much an > imposition. > > >> > > >> @Jonathan Haddad - want to revise the wiki > > article > > >> and call a new vote? > > >> > > >> > > >> On Wed, Jun 17, 2020 at 2:13 PM Jon Haddad > > wrote: > > >> > > >>> Sorry, I was a bit vague there. > > >>> > > >>> I'm in favor of changing the minimum number of votes to be a > simple > > >>> majority of the number of people participating in the roll call. > > For > > >>> example, if we have a roll call of 21, then we'll need a minimum > > of 11 > > >>> binding votes participating. Of that 11, we'd need 2/3 to be +1 > > to pass, > > >>> so in that case 8 +1's. > > >>> > > >>> Regarding a new vote, I am personally in favor of that, yes. > > >>> > > >>> > > >>> On Wed, Jun 17, 2020 at 10:36 AM Brandon Williams < > > dri...@gmail.com> > > >>> wrote: > > >>> > > >>> > So with that (the -1), are you in favor of changing to simple > > majority > > >>> > (I am) and calling a new vote? > > >>> > > > >>> > On Wed, Jun 17, 2020 at 12:30 PM Jon Haddad > > > wrote: > > >>> > > > > >>> > > > I'm not concerned today, no, just musing and pointing out > > that > > >>> there > > >>> > are > > >>> > > easy ways to improve progress if we find there's an > > impediment. I > > >>> don't > > >
Re: [VOTE] Project governance wiki doc
One follow up thought - if we're considering this vote simple majority, or super majority of participants, it's passing and we can just follow up w/revisions on a subsequent vote. I personally would prefer we go that route; we all need to internalize that moving forward and incrementally revising things is Safe and OK. :) ~Josh On Thu, Jun 18, 2020 at 10:00 AM Joshua McKenzie wrote: > So did you two come to an agreement? I must have misread: > > changing the minimum number of votes to be a simple >> majority of the number of people participating in the roll call. For >> example, if we have a roll call of 21, then we'll need a minimum of 11 >> binding votes participating. Of that 11, we'd need 2/3 to be +1 to pass, >> so in that case 8 +1's. > > > I guess we should visit this again afterwards, as this isn't what I >> intended. > > > I have little interest in changing any of the doc as written as reflected > by my +1 vote. :) > > If you two could come to an agreement and articulate it / modify the wiki > to reflect it, we can review as a community and vote again. > > Also, we should clarify the metrics by which the vote will pass which I > didn't above. i.e. Simple Majority binding participants, Consensus from > binding (no -1), etc. I'd advocate for simple majority since none of this > is set in stone and at this point I believe we're bikeshedding against > something that would be a non-issue assuming positive intent and alignment > between response to roll call and participation. > > > On Wed, Jun 17, 2020 at 8:08 PM Yifan Cai wrote: > >> +1 nb >> >> From: Jon Haddad >> Sent: Wednesday, June 17, 2020 2:13 PM >> To: dev@cassandra.apache.org >> Subject: Re: [VOTE] Project governance wiki doc >> >> Yes, this is my understanding as well. >> >> >> On Wed, Jun 17, 2020 at 2:10 PM Benedict Elliott Smith < >> bened...@apache.org> >> wrote: >> >> > I personally think we should not revisit the super-majority of votes >> > decision, as that was settled already; simple-majority came a distant >> > third. Since this question doesn't really invalidate that decision, I >> > think for forward progress it's better to simply address the vote floor, >> > but just my 2c. >> > >> > On 17/06/2020, 21:58, "Jon Haddad" wrote: >> > >> > For what it's worth, I thought Benedict's suggestion was a pretty >> > reasonable one and am in favor of it. >> > >> > On Wed, Jun 17, 2020 at 1:40 PM Joshua McKenzie < >> jmcken...@apache.org> >> > wrote: >> > >> > > Race condition on that last one Benedict. >> > > >> > > What about using the quorum from roll call to simply define how >> many >> > +1's >> > > are needed to pass something? Simple majority of the roll call, >> > simple >> > > majority of total participants on specific vote and it passes? >> > > >> > > For example: >> > > >> > >- 33 pmc members >> > >- 16 roll call >> > >- 9 +1's required. If only participation is 9 vote with +1, >> passes >> > >- If 9 +1's and 10 -1's, does not pass >> > > >> > > That prevents the "abstain to keep vote invalid" while keeping >> with >> > the >> > > lazy consensus spirit and requiring enough participation that a >> vote >> > should >> > > reasonably be considered indicative. Does raise the bar a bit from >> > "simple >> > > majority of this many votes required" to "this many +1's >> required", >> > but >> > > hopefully people responding to a roll call actually plan on >> showing >> > up. We >> > > could also open votes with "this many +1's required to pass" which >> > might >> > > further encourage participation. >> > > >> > > >> > > On Wed, Jun 17, 2020 at 2:24 PM Joshua McKenzie < >> > jmcken...@apache.org> >> > > wrote: >> > > >> > >> I don't see anybody advocating for the low watermark where it >> > stands. >> > >> I'm +1 on the "simple majority of roll call + supermajority of >> that" >> > >> revision, and no real harm in re-calling a vote today vs. >> > yesterday; one >> > >> day delay to clean this up now doesn't seem too much an >> imposition. >> > >> >> > >> @Jonathan Haddad - want to revise the wiki >> > article >> > >> and call a new vote? >> > >> >> > >> >> > >> On Wed, Jun 17, 2020 at 2:13 PM Jon Haddad >> > wrote: >> > >> >> > >>> Sorry, I was a bit vague there. >> > >>> >> > >>> I'm in favor of changing the minimum number of votes to be a >> simple >> > >>> majority of the number of people participating in the roll call. >> > For >> > >>> example, if we have a roll call of 21, then we'll need a minimum >> > of 11 >> > >>> binding votes participating. Of that 11, we'd need 2/3 to be +1 >> > to pass, >> > >>> so in that case 8 +1's. >> > >>> >> > >>> Regarding a new vote, I am personally in favor of that, yes. >> > >>> >> > >>> >> > >>> On Wed, Jun 17, 2020 at 10:36 AM Br
Re: [VOTE] Project governance wiki doc
> If you two could come to an agreement and articulate it / modify the wiki to reflect it, we can review as a community and vote again. Since you started the vote, it would be up to you to stop it so we can modify the doc. I don't feel comfortable modifying a doc mid-vote, it's not fair to those that have voted, and I don't like introducing inconsistency into our voting. Since we're still governed by the Apache rules, this is a simple majority vote requiring a minimum 3 +1's. I am very concerned that if we raise the bar for voting too high, we will find ourselves in a position where we are unable to change the voting rules due to the bar being too high. I may be in the minority here though. I'm extremely curious if this process would have enough votes to pass the proposed voting guidelines, because if it doesn't, I don't see the point in adopting them. Again, my opinion might not be shared by everyone else. I'm sticking with my -1 on the doc as-is. Thanks, Jon On Thu, Jun 18, 2020 at 8:17 AM Joshua McKenzie wrote: > One follow up thought - if we're considering this vote simple majority, or > super majority of participants, it's passing and we can just follow up > w/revisions on a subsequent vote. I personally would prefer we go that > route; we all need to internalize that moving forward and incrementally > revising things is Safe and OK. :) > > ~Josh > > On Thu, Jun 18, 2020 at 10:00 AM Joshua McKenzie > wrote: > > > So did you two come to an agreement? I must have misread: > > > > changing the minimum number of votes to be a simple > >> majority of the number of people participating in the roll call. For > >> example, if we have a roll call of 21, then we'll need a minimum of 11 > >> binding votes participating. Of that 11, we'd need 2/3 to be +1 to > pass, > >> so in that case 8 +1's. > > > > > > I guess we should visit this again afterwards, as this isn't what I > >> intended. > > > > > > I have little interest in changing any of the doc as written as reflected > > by my +1 vote. :) > > > > If you two could come to an agreement and articulate it / modify the wiki > > to reflect it, we can review as a community and vote again. > > > > Also, we should clarify the metrics by which the vote will pass which I > > didn't above. i.e. Simple Majority binding participants, Consensus from > > binding (no -1), etc. I'd advocate for simple majority since none of this > > is set in stone and at this point I believe we're bikeshedding against > > something that would be a non-issue assuming positive intent and > alignment > > between response to roll call and participation. > > > > > > On Wed, Jun 17, 2020 at 8:08 PM Yifan Cai wrote: > > > >> +1 nb > >> > >> From: Jon Haddad > >> Sent: Wednesday, June 17, 2020 2:13 PM > >> To: dev@cassandra.apache.org > >> Subject: Re: [VOTE] Project governance wiki doc > >> > >> Yes, this is my understanding as well. > >> > >> > >> On Wed, Jun 17, 2020 at 2:10 PM Benedict Elliott Smith < > >> bened...@apache.org> > >> wrote: > >> > >> > I personally think we should not revisit the super-majority of votes > >> > decision, as that was settled already; simple-majority came a distant > >> > third. Since this question doesn't really invalidate that decision, I > >> > think for forward progress it's better to simply address the vote > floor, > >> > but just my 2c. > >> > > >> > On 17/06/2020, 21:58, "Jon Haddad" wrote: > >> > > >> > For what it's worth, I thought Benedict's suggestion was a pretty > >> > reasonable one and am in favor of it. > >> > > >> > On Wed, Jun 17, 2020 at 1:40 PM Joshua McKenzie < > >> jmcken...@apache.org> > >> > wrote: > >> > > >> > > Race condition on that last one Benedict. > >> > > > >> > > What about using the quorum from roll call to simply define how > >> many > >> > +1's > >> > > are needed to pass something? Simple majority of the roll call, > >> > simple > >> > > majority of total participants on specific vote and it passes? > >> > > > >> > > For example: > >> > > > >> > >- 33 pmc members > >> > >- 16 roll call > >> > >- 9 +1's required. If only participation is 9 vote with +1, > >> passes > >> > >- If 9 +1's and 10 -1's, does not pass > >> > > > >> > > That prevents the "abstain to keep vote invalid" while keeping > >> with > >> > the > >> > > lazy consensus spirit and requiring enough participation that a > >> vote > >> > should > >> > > reasonably be considered indicative. Does raise the bar a bit > from > >> > "simple > >> > > majority of this many votes required" to "this many +1's > >> required", > >> > but > >> > > hopefully people responding to a roll call actually plan on > >> showing > >> > up. We > >> > > could also open votes with "this many +1's required to pass" > which > >> > might > >> > > further encourage participation. > >> > > > >> > > > >> > > On Wed, Jun 17,
Re: [VOTE] Project governance wiki doc
I'm formally stopping the vote. Jon, please revise the wiki. Good point about getting ourselves stuck into a corner we couldn't vote ourselves back out of. That'd just be silly. On Thu, Jun 18, 2020 at 12:19 PM Jon Haddad wrote: > > If you two could come to an agreement and articulate it / modify the > wiki to reflect it, we can review as a community and vote again. > > Since you started the vote, it would be up to you to stop it so we can > modify the doc. I don't feel comfortable modifying a doc mid-vote, it's > not fair to those that have voted, and I don't like introducing > inconsistency into our voting. > > Since we're still governed by the Apache rules, this is a simple majority > vote requiring a minimum 3 +1's. > > I am very concerned that if we raise the bar for voting too high, we will > find ourselves in a position where we are unable to change the voting rules > due to the bar being too high. I may be in the minority here though. I'm > extremely curious if this process would have enough votes to pass the > proposed voting guidelines, because if it doesn't, I don't see the point in > adopting them. Again, my opinion might not be shared by everyone else. > > I'm sticking with my -1 on the doc as-is. > > Thanks, > Jon > > On Thu, Jun 18, 2020 at 8:17 AM Joshua McKenzie > wrote: > > > One follow up thought - if we're considering this vote simple majority, > or > > super majority of participants, it's passing and we can just follow up > > w/revisions on a subsequent vote. I personally would prefer we go that > > route; we all need to internalize that moving forward and incrementally > > revising things is Safe and OK. :) > > > > ~Josh > > > > On Thu, Jun 18, 2020 at 10:00 AM Joshua McKenzie > > wrote: > > > > > So did you two come to an agreement? I must have misread: > > > > > > changing the minimum number of votes to be a simple > > >> majority of the number of people participating in the roll call. For > > >> example, if we have a roll call of 21, then we'll need a minimum of 11 > > >> binding votes participating. Of that 11, we'd need 2/3 to be +1 to > > pass, > > >> so in that case 8 +1's. > > > > > > > > > I guess we should visit this again afterwards, as this isn't what I > > >> intended. > > > > > > > > > I have little interest in changing any of the doc as written as > reflected > > > by my +1 vote. :) > > > > > > If you two could come to an agreement and articulate it / modify the > wiki > > > to reflect it, we can review as a community and vote again. > > > > > > Also, we should clarify the metrics by which the vote will pass which I > > > didn't above. i.e. Simple Majority binding participants, Consensus from > > > binding (no -1), etc. I'd advocate for simple majority since none of > this > > > is set in stone and at this point I believe we're bikeshedding against > > > something that would be a non-issue assuming positive intent and > > alignment > > > between response to roll call and participation. > > > > > > > > > On Wed, Jun 17, 2020 at 8:08 PM Yifan Cai wrote: > > > > > >> +1 nb > > >> > > >> From: Jon Haddad > > >> Sent: Wednesday, June 17, 2020 2:13 PM > > >> To: dev@cassandra.apache.org > > >> Subject: Re: [VOTE] Project governance wiki doc > > >> > > >> Yes, this is my understanding as well. > > >> > > >> > > >> On Wed, Jun 17, 2020 at 2:10 PM Benedict Elliott Smith < > > >> bened...@apache.org> > > >> wrote: > > >> > > >> > I personally think we should not revisit the super-majority of votes > > >> > decision, as that was settled already; simple-majority came a > distant > > >> > third. Since this question doesn't really invalidate that > decision, I > > >> > think for forward progress it's better to simply address the vote > > floor, > > >> > but just my 2c. > > >> > > > >> > On 17/06/2020, 21:58, "Jon Haddad" wrote: > > >> > > > >> > For what it's worth, I thought Benedict's suggestion was a > pretty > > >> > reasonable one and am in favor of it. > > >> > > > >> > On Wed, Jun 17, 2020 at 1:40 PM Joshua McKenzie < > > >> jmcken...@apache.org> > > >> > wrote: > > >> > > > >> > > Race condition on that last one Benedict. > > >> > > > > >> > > What about using the quorum from roll call to simply define > how > > >> many > > >> > +1's > > >> > > are needed to pass something? Simple majority of the roll > call, > > >> > simple > > >> > > majority of total participants on specific vote and it passes? > > >> > > > > >> > > For example: > > >> > > > > >> > >- 33 pmc members > > >> > >- 16 roll call > > >> > >- 9 +1's required. If only participation is 9 vote with +1, > > >> passes > > >> > >- If 9 +1's and 10 -1's, does not pass > > >> > > > > >> > > That prevents the "abstain to keep vote invalid" while keeping > > >> with > > >> > the > > >> > > lazy consensus spirit and requiring enough participation that > a > > >> vote > > >> > should >
Re: [VOTE] Project governance wiki doc
It does raise the question of how we would conduct a vote immediately afterwards - would the vote floor be temporarily be zero, since we've conducted no roll calls? Perhaps we should indicate in the next vote we call on the rules, that votes will also serve as the initial roll call. Also, we did discuss having mechanisms to ensure we can "vote our way out" e.g. by permitting a new roll call if we fail to pass several votes in a row. On 18/06/2020, 18:58, "Joshua McKenzie" wrote: I'm formally stopping the vote. Jon, please revise the wiki. Good point about getting ourselves stuck into a corner we couldn't vote ourselves back out of. That'd just be silly. On Thu, Jun 18, 2020 at 12:19 PM Jon Haddad wrote: > > If you two could come to an agreement and articulate it / modify the > wiki to reflect it, we can review as a community and vote again. > > Since you started the vote, it would be up to you to stop it so we can > modify the doc. I don't feel comfortable modifying a doc mid-vote, it's > not fair to those that have voted, and I don't like introducing > inconsistency into our voting. > > Since we're still governed by the Apache rules, this is a simple majority > vote requiring a minimum 3 +1's. > > I am very concerned that if we raise the bar for voting too high, we will > find ourselves in a position where we are unable to change the voting rules > due to the bar being too high. I may be in the minority here though. I'm > extremely curious if this process would have enough votes to pass the > proposed voting guidelines, because if it doesn't, I don't see the point in > adopting them. Again, my opinion might not be shared by everyone else. > > I'm sticking with my -1 on the doc as-is. > > Thanks, > Jon > > On Thu, Jun 18, 2020 at 8:17 AM Joshua McKenzie > wrote: > > > One follow up thought - if we're considering this vote simple majority, > or > > super majority of participants, it's passing and we can just follow up > > w/revisions on a subsequent vote. I personally would prefer we go that > > route; we all need to internalize that moving forward and incrementally > > revising things is Safe and OK. :) > > > > ~Josh > > > > On Thu, Jun 18, 2020 at 10:00 AM Joshua McKenzie > > wrote: > > > > > So did you two come to an agreement? I must have misread: > > > > > > changing the minimum number of votes to be a simple > > >> majority of the number of people participating in the roll call. For > > >> example, if we have a roll call of 21, then we'll need a minimum of 11 > > >> binding votes participating. Of that 11, we'd need 2/3 to be +1 to > > pass, > > >> so in that case 8 +1's. > > > > > > > > > I guess we should visit this again afterwards, as this isn't what I > > >> intended. > > > > > > > > > I have little interest in changing any of the doc as written as > reflected > > > by my +1 vote. :) > > > > > > If you two could come to an agreement and articulate it / modify the > wiki > > > to reflect it, we can review as a community and vote again. > > > > > > Also, we should clarify the metrics by which the vote will pass which I > > > didn't above. i.e. Simple Majority binding participants, Consensus from > > > binding (no -1), etc. I'd advocate for simple majority since none of > this > > > is set in stone and at this point I believe we're bikeshedding against > > > something that would be a non-issue assuming positive intent and > > alignment > > > between response to roll call and participation. > > > > > > > > > On Wed, Jun 17, 2020 at 8:08 PM Yifan Cai wrote: > > > > > >> +1 nb > > >> > > >> From: Jon Haddad > > >> Sent: Wednesday, June 17, 2020 2:13 PM > > >> To: dev@cassandra.apache.org > > >> Subject: Re: [VOTE] Project governance wiki doc > > >> > > >> Yes, this is my understanding as well. > > >> > > >> > > >> On Wed, Jun 17, 2020 at 2:10 PM Benedict Elliott Smith < > > >> bened...@apache.org> > > >> wrote: > > >> > > >> > I personally think we should not revisit the super-majority of votes > > >> > decision, as that was settled already; simple-majority came a > distant > > >> > third. Since this question doesn't really invalidate that > decision, I > > >> > think for forward progress it's better to simply address the vote > > floor, > > >> > but just my 2c. > > >> > > > >> > On 17/06/2020, 21:58, "Jon Haddad" wrote: > > >> > > > >> > For what it's worth, I thought Benedict's suggestion was a > pretty > > >> > reasonable one and am in favor of it. > > >> > > > >> > On Wed, Jun 17, 2020 at 1:40 PM Joshua Mc
Re: [VOTE] Project governance wiki doc
Yes... it is a bit awkward. It's why I was originally in favor of increasing the minimum threshold to 7 & go to super majority. It's more than what we do now, but not so much that I think we'll end up backed into a corner. I didn't do a good job of explaining that though. Might be useful to take a roll call now just to get a feel for what we're voting for. On Thu, Jun 18, 2020 at 11:21 AM Benedict Elliott Smith wrote: > It does raise the question of how we would conduct a vote immediately > afterwards - would the vote floor be temporarily be zero, since we've > conducted no roll calls? Perhaps we should indicate in the next vote we > call on the rules, that votes will also serve as the initial roll call. > > Also, we did discuss having mechanisms to ensure we can "vote our way out" > e.g. by permitting a new roll call if we fail to pass several votes in a > row. > > On 18/06/2020, 18:58, "Joshua McKenzie" wrote: > > I'm formally stopping the vote. Jon, please revise the wiki. > > Good point about getting ourselves stuck into a corner we couldn't vote > ourselves back out of. That'd just be silly. > > On Thu, Jun 18, 2020 at 12:19 PM Jon Haddad wrote: > > > > If you two could come to an agreement and articulate it / modify > the > > wiki to reflect it, we can review as a community and vote again. > > > > Since you started the vote, it would be up to you to stop it so we > can > > modify the doc. I don't feel comfortable modifying a doc mid-vote, > it's > > not fair to those that have voted, and I don't like introducing > > inconsistency into our voting. > > > > Since we're still governed by the Apache rules, this is a simple > majority > > vote requiring a minimum 3 +1's. > > > > I am very concerned that if we raise the bar for voting too high, we > will > > find ourselves in a position where we are unable to change the > voting rules > > due to the bar being too high. I may be in the minority here > though. I'm > > extremely curious if this process would have enough votes to pass the > > proposed voting guidelines, because if it doesn't, I don't see the > point in > > adopting them. Again, my opinion might not be shared by everyone > else. > > > > I'm sticking with my -1 on the doc as-is. > > > > Thanks, > > Jon > > > > On Thu, Jun 18, 2020 at 8:17 AM Joshua McKenzie < > jmcken...@apache.org> > > wrote: > > > > > One follow up thought - if we're considering this vote simple > majority, > > or > > > super majority of participants, it's passing and we can just > follow up > > > w/revisions on a subsequent vote. I personally would prefer we go > that > > > route; we all need to internalize that moving forward and > incrementally > > > revising things is Safe and OK. :) > > > > > > ~Josh > > > > > > On Thu, Jun 18, 2020 at 10:00 AM Joshua McKenzie < > jmcken...@apache.org> > > > wrote: > > > > > > > So did you two come to an agreement? I must have misread: > > > > > > > > changing the minimum number of votes to be a simple > > > >> majority of the number of people participating in the roll > call. For > > > >> example, if we have a roll call of 21, then we'll need a > minimum of 11 > > > >> binding votes participating. Of that 11, we'd need 2/3 to be > +1 to > > > pass, > > > >> so in that case 8 +1's. > > > > > > > > > > > > I guess we should visit this again afterwards, as this isn't > what I > > > >> intended. > > > > > > > > > > > > I have little interest in changing any of the doc as written as > > reflected > > > > by my +1 vote. :) > > > > > > > > If you two could come to an agreement and articulate it / modify > the > > wiki > > > > to reflect it, we can review as a community and vote again. > > > > > > > > Also, we should clarify the metrics by which the vote will pass > which I > > > > didn't above. i.e. Simple Majority binding participants, > Consensus from > > > > binding (no -1), etc. I'd advocate for simple majority since > none of > > this > > > > is set in stone and at this point I believe we're bikeshedding > against > > > > something that would be a non-issue assuming positive intent and > > > alignment > > > > between response to roll call and participation. > > > > > > > > > > > > On Wed, Jun 17, 2020 at 8:08 PM Yifan Cai > wrote: > > > > > > > >> +1 nb > > > >> > > > >> From: Jon Haddad > > > >> Sent: Wednesday, June 17, 2020 2:13 PM > > > >> To: dev@cassandra.apache.org > > > >> Subject: Re: [VOTE] Project governance wiki doc > > > >> > > > >> Yes, this is my understanding as well. > > > >> > > > >> > > > >> On Wed, Jun 17, 2020 at 2:10 PM Benedict Elliott Smith < > > > >> bened...@apache.org
Re: [VOTE] Project governance wiki doc
Well, it's only awkward for the very first vote, and it's not clear the 7 votes is any less problematic, as it has no recovery mechanism (whereas roll call at worst waits until the next roll call). Anyway, we had 11 votes on the rules, which would be 6 votes if we take 50%, and 7 if we take 66%. I think we'll be fine, whatever we do. On 18/06/2020, 19:48, "Jon Haddad" wrote: Yes... it is a bit awkward. It's why I was originally in favor of increasing the minimum threshold to 7 & go to super majority. It's more than what we do now, but not so much that I think we'll end up backed into a corner. I didn't do a good job of explaining that though. Might be useful to take a roll call now just to get a feel for what we're voting for. On Thu, Jun 18, 2020 at 11:21 AM Benedict Elliott Smith wrote: > It does raise the question of how we would conduct a vote immediately > afterwards - would the vote floor be temporarily be zero, since we've > conducted no roll calls? Perhaps we should indicate in the next vote we > call on the rules, that votes will also serve as the initial roll call. > > Also, we did discuss having mechanisms to ensure we can "vote our way out" > e.g. by permitting a new roll call if we fail to pass several votes in a > row. > > On 18/06/2020, 18:58, "Joshua McKenzie" wrote: > > I'm formally stopping the vote. Jon, please revise the wiki. > > Good point about getting ourselves stuck into a corner we couldn't vote > ourselves back out of. That'd just be silly. > > On Thu, Jun 18, 2020 at 12:19 PM Jon Haddad wrote: > > > > If you two could come to an agreement and articulate it / modify > the > > wiki to reflect it, we can review as a community and vote again. > > > > Since you started the vote, it would be up to you to stop it so we > can > > modify the doc. I don't feel comfortable modifying a doc mid-vote, > it's > > not fair to those that have voted, and I don't like introducing > > inconsistency into our voting. > > > > Since we're still governed by the Apache rules, this is a simple > majority > > vote requiring a minimum 3 +1's. > > > > I am very concerned that if we raise the bar for voting too high, we > will > > find ourselves in a position where we are unable to change the > voting rules > > due to the bar being too high. I may be in the minority here > though. I'm > > extremely curious if this process would have enough votes to pass the > > proposed voting guidelines, because if it doesn't, I don't see the > point in > > adopting them. Again, my opinion might not be shared by everyone > else. > > > > I'm sticking with my -1 on the doc as-is. > > > > Thanks, > > Jon > > > > On Thu, Jun 18, 2020 at 8:17 AM Joshua McKenzie < > jmcken...@apache.org> > > wrote: > > > > > One follow up thought - if we're considering this vote simple > majority, > > or > > > super majority of participants, it's passing and we can just > follow up > > > w/revisions on a subsequent vote. I personally would prefer we go > that > > > route; we all need to internalize that moving forward and > incrementally > > > revising things is Safe and OK. :) > > > > > > ~Josh > > > > > > On Thu, Jun 18, 2020 at 10:00 AM Joshua McKenzie < > jmcken...@apache.org> > > > wrote: > > > > > > > So did you two come to an agreement? I must have misread: > > > > > > > > changing the minimum number of votes to be a simple > > > >> majority of the number of people participating in the roll > call. For > > > >> example, if we have a roll call of 21, then we'll need a > minimum of 11 > > > >> binding votes participating. Of that 11, we'd need 2/3 to be > +1 to > > > pass, > > > >> so in that case 8 +1's. > > > > > > > > > > > > I guess we should visit this again afterwards, as this isn't > what I > > > >> intended. > > > > > > > > > > > > I have little interest in changing any of the doc as written as > > reflected > > > > by my +1 vote. :) > > > > > > > > If you two could come to an agreement and articulate it / modify > the > > wiki > > > > to reflect it, we can review as a community and vote again. > > > > > > > > Also, we should clarify the metrics by which the vote will pass > which I > > > > didn't above. i.e. Simple Majority binding participants, > Consensus from > > > > binding (no -1), etc. I'd advocate f
Re: [VOTE] Project governance wiki doc
Fair point. I think using the number of votes here as the first roll call is reasonable. Good suggestion. On Thu, Jun 18, 2020 at 11:52 AM Benedict Elliott Smith wrote: > Well, it's only awkward for the very first vote, and it's not clear the 7 > votes is any less problematic, as it has no recovery mechanism (whereas > roll call at worst waits until the next roll call). > > Anyway, we had 11 votes on the rules, which would be 6 votes if we take > 50%, and 7 if we take 66%. I think we'll be fine, whatever we do. > > On 18/06/2020, 19:48, "Jon Haddad" wrote: > > Yes... it is a bit awkward. It's why I was originally in favor of > increasing the minimum threshold to 7 & go to super majority. It's > more > than what we do now, but not so much that I think we'll end up backed > into > a corner. I didn't do a good job of explaining that though. > > Might be useful to take a roll call now just to get a feel for what > we're > voting for. > > On Thu, Jun 18, 2020 at 11:21 AM Benedict Elliott Smith < > bened...@apache.org> > wrote: > > > It does raise the question of how we would conduct a vote immediately > > afterwards - would the vote floor be temporarily be zero, since we've > > conducted no roll calls? Perhaps we should indicate in the next > vote we > > call on the rules, that votes will also serve as the initial roll > call. > > > > Also, we did discuss having mechanisms to ensure we can "vote our > way out" > > e.g. by permitting a new roll call if we fail to pass several votes > in a > > row. > > > > On 18/06/2020, 18:58, "Joshua McKenzie" > wrote: > > > > I'm formally stopping the vote. Jon, please revise the wiki. > > > > Good point about getting ourselves stuck into a corner we > couldn't vote > > ourselves back out of. That'd just be silly. > > > > On Thu, Jun 18, 2020 at 12:19 PM Jon Haddad > wrote: > > > > > > If you two could come to an agreement and articulate it / > modify > > the > > > wiki to reflect it, we can review as a community and vote > again. > > > > > > Since you started the vote, it would be up to you to stop it > so we > > can > > > modify the doc. I don't feel comfortable modifying a doc > mid-vote, > > it's > > > not fair to those that have voted, and I don't like introducing > > > inconsistency into our voting. > > > > > > Since we're still governed by the Apache rules, this is a > simple > > majority > > > vote requiring a minimum 3 +1's. > > > > > > I am very concerned that if we raise the bar for voting too > high, we > > will > > > find ourselves in a position where we are unable to change the > > voting rules > > > due to the bar being too high. I may be in the minority here > > though. I'm > > > extremely curious if this process would have enough votes to > pass the > > > proposed voting guidelines, because if it doesn't, I don't see > the > > point in > > > adopting them. Again, my opinion might not be shared by > everyone > > else. > > > > > > I'm sticking with my -1 on the doc as-is. > > > > > > Thanks, > > > Jon > > > > > > On Thu, Jun 18, 2020 at 8:17 AM Joshua McKenzie < > > jmcken...@apache.org> > > > wrote: > > > > > > > One follow up thought - if we're considering this vote simple > > majority, > > > or > > > > super majority of participants, it's passing and we can just > > follow up > > > > w/revisions on a subsequent vote. I personally would prefer > we go > > that > > > > route; we all need to internalize that moving forward and > > incrementally > > > > revising things is Safe and OK. :) > > > > > > > > ~Josh > > > > > > > > On Thu, Jun 18, 2020 at 10:00 AM Joshua McKenzie < > > jmcken...@apache.org> > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > So did you two come to an agreement? I must have misread: > > > > > > > > > > changing the minimum number of votes to be a simple > > > > >> majority of the number of people participating in the roll > > call. For > > > > >> example, if we have a roll call of 21, then we'll need a > > minimum of 11 > > > > >> binding votes participating. Of that 11, we'd need 2/3 > to be > > +1 to > > > > pass, > > > > >> so in that case 8 +1's. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I guess we should visit this again afterwards, as this > isn't > > what I > > > > >> intended. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I have little interest in changing any of the doc as > written as > > > reflected > > > > > by my +1 vote. :) >
Re: [VOTE] Project governance wiki doc
I've revised the wiki to read: "PMC roll call will be taken every 6 months. This is an email to dev@ w/the simple question to pmc members of “are you active on the project and plan to participate in voting over the next 6 months?”. *This is strictly an exercise to get quorum count and in no way restricts ability to participate during this time window. *A simple majority of this electorate becomes the low-watermark for votes in favour necessary to pass a motion, with new PMC members added to the calculation." @Jonathan Haddad / @Benedict Elliott Smith - did I get that right? On Thu, Jun 18, 2020 at 3:00 PM Jon Haddad wrote: > Fair point. I think using the number of votes here as the first roll call > is reasonable. Good suggestion. > > On Thu, Jun 18, 2020 at 11:52 AM Benedict Elliott Smith < > bened...@apache.org> > wrote: > > > Well, it's only awkward for the very first vote, and it's not clear the 7 > > votes is any less problematic, as it has no recovery mechanism (whereas > > roll call at worst waits until the next roll call). > > > > Anyway, we had 11 votes on the rules, which would be 6 votes if we take > > 50%, and 7 if we take 66%. I think we'll be fine, whatever we do. > > > > On 18/06/2020, 19:48, "Jon Haddad" wrote: > > > > Yes... it is a bit awkward. It's why I was originally in favor of > > increasing the minimum threshold to 7 & go to super majority. It's > > more > > than what we do now, but not so much that I think we'll end up backed > > into > > a corner. I didn't do a good job of explaining that though. > > > > Might be useful to take a roll call now just to get a feel for what > > we're > > voting for. > > > > On Thu, Jun 18, 2020 at 11:21 AM Benedict Elliott Smith < > > bened...@apache.org> > > wrote: > > > > > It does raise the question of how we would conduct a vote > immediately > > > afterwards - would the vote floor be temporarily be zero, since > we've > > > conducted no roll calls? Perhaps we should indicate in the next > > vote we > > > call on the rules, that votes will also serve as the initial roll > > call. > > > > > > Also, we did discuss having mechanisms to ensure we can "vote our > > way out" > > > e.g. by permitting a new roll call if we fail to pass several votes > > in a > > > row. > > > > > > On 18/06/2020, 18:58, "Joshua McKenzie" > > wrote: > > > > > > I'm formally stopping the vote. Jon, please revise the wiki. > > > > > > Good point about getting ourselves stuck into a corner we > > couldn't vote > > > ourselves back out of. That'd just be silly. > > > > > > On Thu, Jun 18, 2020 at 12:19 PM Jon Haddad > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > If you two could come to an agreement and articulate it / > > modify > > > the > > > > wiki to reflect it, we can review as a community and vote > > again. > > > > > > > > Since you started the vote, it would be up to you to stop it > > so we > > > can > > > > modify the doc. I don't feel comfortable modifying a doc > > mid-vote, > > > it's > > > > not fair to those that have voted, and I don't like > introducing > > > > inconsistency into our voting. > > > > > > > > Since we're still governed by the Apache rules, this is a > > simple > > > majority > > > > vote requiring a minimum 3 +1's. > > > > > > > > I am very concerned that if we raise the bar for voting too > > high, we > > > will > > > > find ourselves in a position where we are unable to change > the > > > voting rules > > > > due to the bar being too high. I may be in the minority here > > > though. I'm > > > > extremely curious if this process would have enough votes to > > pass the > > > > proposed voting guidelines, because if it doesn't, I don't > see > > the > > > point in > > > > adopting them. Again, my opinion might not be shared by > > everyone > > > else. > > > > > > > > I'm sticking with my -1 on the doc as-is. > > > > > > > > Thanks, > > > > Jon > > > > > > > > On Thu, Jun 18, 2020 at 8:17 AM Joshua McKenzie < > > > jmcken...@apache.org> > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > One follow up thought - if we're considering this vote > simple > > > majority, > > > > or > > > > > super majority of participants, it's passing and we can > just > > > follow up > > > > > w/revisions on a subsequent vote. I personally would prefer > > we go > > > that > > > > > route; we all need to internalize that moving forward and > > > incrementally > > > > > revising things is Safe and OK. :) > > > > > > > > > > ~Josh > > > > > > > > > > On Thu, Jun 18, 2020 at 10:00 AM Joshua McKenzie < > > > jmcken...@apa
